Inter Partes Review
-
PTAB Denies Institution of Matterport’s Four IPR Petitions Against Surefield’s Patents on 3D Image-Based Rendering11/19/2021DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Appliance Computing III, Inc., d/b/a Surefield. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of four petitions for inter partes review filed by Matterport, Inc. against patents on 3D image-based rendering for real estate held by Surefield.
-
PTAB Victory Against NetApp, Inc. on Behalf of KOM Software, Inc. Relating to Patents on Restricting Access to a Storage Medium09/22/2020
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client KOM Software, Inc (“KOM”). On August 17, 2020 and September 22, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued its final written decisions on three petitions for inter partes review filed by NetApp, Inc. against KOM’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,864 and 9,361,243 relating to restricting access to a storage medium. The PTAB found that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 6,654,864 and U.S. Patent 9,361,243 “have not been shown to be unpatentable."
-
DiNovo Price Secures Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review Regarding Applicability of the “Holiday Rule”08/21/2019
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client KOM Software, Inc. In IPR2019-00597, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 6,654,864, finding that the “holiday rule” applied to extend the patent owner’s deadline to file a continuing application.
-
Ex Parte Reexamination Victory Against Samsung on Behalf of Papst Licensing Relating to Patent on Interface Devices for Communication Between Camera Phones and Computers06/28/2019
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. On August 1, 2018, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Nikon Corporation, Nikon, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corp. of North America, JVCKenwood Corp., JVC Company of North America, FujiFilm Corp., FujiFilm North America Corp., and Sanyo Co. Ltd. filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Papst’s U.S. Patent No. 6,865,449 (’449 patent”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), asserting that claims 1 - 18 of the ’449 patent were invalid and unpatentable. On June 28, 2019, the PTO issued its Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate, confirming the patentability of claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,449.
-
DiNovo Price Recognized Among Top 5 IPR Firms by Patexia; Three Partners Recognized as Top 25 Performers12/17/2018
DiNovo Price LLP and partners Andrew DiNovo, Christopher Goodpastor, and Greg Donahue have been recognized for exceptional performance in the field of Inter Partes Review in Patexia Inc.’s 2018 IPR Intelligence Report, an annual report that provides rankings, statistics, and comprehensive analysis of IPR stakeholders.
-
PTAB Victory Against Apple on Behalf of Papst Licensing Relating to Patents on Interface Devices for Communication Between Camera Phones and Computers04/01/2018
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. On April 13 and 26, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its final written decisions on two petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. against Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,504,746 (“’746 patent”) and 9,189,437 (“’437 patent”) relating to interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers. The PTAB found that Apple “has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence” that the challenged claims of the ’746 patent and claims 1, 4-6, 9-16, 18, 30, 32, and 34 of the ’437 patent are unpatentable.
-
PTAB Victory Against Qualcomm Inc. on Behalf of Bandspeed, Inc. Relating to Patents on Management and Use of Communications Channels in Wireless Networks09/18/2017
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Bandspeed, Inc. On August 5, 2017, August 23, 2017, and September 7, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued final written decisions on five petitions for inter partes review filed by Qualcomm Inc. against Bandspeed, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,477,624 (“’624 Patent”), 8,542,643 (“’643 Patent”) and 8,873,500 (“’500 Patent”), relating to selecting and using communications channels based on performance in systems that use frequency hopping protocols in wireless networks such as Bluetooth®.
-
PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Petitions Filed by Huawei, LG, and ZTE Against Papst Licensing’s Patents on Interface Devices for Communication Between Camera Phones and Computers07/01/2017
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. In May, June, and July 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of four petitions for inter partes review filed by one or more of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and ZTE (USA), Inc. against Papst’s patents on interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers. The PTAB found that the petitioners had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims of Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,865,449; 8,504,746; 8,966,144; and 9,189,437.
-
PTAB Denies Institution of Nine IPR Petitions Filed by Apple Against Papst Licensing’s Patents on Interface Devices for Communication Between Camera Phones and Computers04/01/2017
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG. In March and April 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of nine petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. against Papst’s patents on interface devices for communication between camera phones and computers. The PTAB found that Apple had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims of Papst’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399; 8,504,746; 8,966,144; and 9,189,437.
-
"Most Image Patent Claims Challenged By Apple Survive PTAB," Law36005/09/2016 | Law360
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found Friday that Apple and ZTE showed that three claims of an e-Watch Inc. patent on digital image technology were invalid as obvious over prior art, but failed to show that eight other claims were unpatentable.
-
PTAB Victory Against Apple and ZTE on Behalf of e-Watch, Inc. Relating to Wireless Camera Phone Patent05/06/2016
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client e-Watch, Inc. On May 6, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a 58-page final written decision on petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc. and ZTE Corporation against e-Watch’s wireless camera phone patent, finding that Apple and ZTE “have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any one of claims 1 – 8 [of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871] is unpatentable.”
-
PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Petitions Filed by Apple and Samsung Against e-Watch’s Wireless Camera Phone Patent07/01/2015
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client e-Watch, Inc. In May and July 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against e-Watch’s wireless camera phone patent. The PTAB found that Apple and Samsung failed to establish “a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability” of any challenged claim of e-Watch’s U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871.